Difference between revisions of "Urim VeTummim/2"
m |
|||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
<category>Choshen Stones | <category>Choshen Stones | ||
<p>The Urim and Tummim are identified with the stones of the Choshen on which were engraved the names of the tribes.</p> | <p>The Urim and Tummim are identified with the stones of the Choshen on which were engraved the names of the tribes.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href=" | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews3-8-9" data-aht="source">Josephus</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews3-8-9" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 3:8:9</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary28-6" data-aht="source">Lekach Tov</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary28-6" data-aht="source">Shemot 29:15</a><a href="R. Toviah b. Eliezer (Lekach Tov)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Toviah b. Eliezer</a></multilink>, perhaps <multilink><a href="RambamHilkhotBeitHaBechirah4-1_2" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamHilkhotBeitHaBechirah4-1_2" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Beit HaBechirah 4:1</a><a href="RambamHilkhotKeleiHaMikdash10-10-13" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 10:10-13</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink>,<fn>Rambam is not explicit, but this is how he has been understood by later commentators.  See, for example, <multilink><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahShemot28-30" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahShemot28-30" data-aht="source">Shemot 28:30</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg</a></multilink>.</fn> <multilink><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamShemot28-30" data-aht="source">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</a><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamShemot28-30" data-aht="source">Shemot 28:30</a><a href="R. Avraham Maimonides" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Maimonides</a></multilink></mekorot> |
<point><b>No description in Shemot 28?</b> The lack of description of the Urim and Tummim might be one of the factors motivating this approach.  If the Urim and Tummin are identical with the stones of the Choshen which are described at length, there is no need to describe them separately.</point> | <point><b>No description in Shemot 28?</b> The lack of description of the Urim and Tummim might be one of the factors motivating this approach.  If the Urim and Tummin are identical with the stones of the Choshen which are described at length, there is no need to describe them separately.</point> | ||
<point><b>No execution in Shemot 39?</b> For this same reason, there is no distinct description of the Urim and Tummim being created in Shemot 39. Their creation is included in the chapter's detailing of the making of the Choshen stones.</point> | <point><b>No execution in Shemot 39?</b> For this same reason, there is no distinct description of the Urim and Tummim being created in Shemot 39. Their creation is included in the chapter's detailing of the making of the Choshen stones.</point> | ||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"וַיִּתֵּן אֶל הַחֹשֶׁן אֶת הָאוּרִים וְאֶת הַתֻּמִּים"</b> – Ibn Ezra<fn>See also Ralbag and Abarbanel.</fn> questions that if the Urim and Tummim are identical with the Choshen stones, how is one to understand the phrase "וַיִּתֵּן אֶל הַחֹשֶׁן" (<a href="Vayikra8-6-9" data-aht="source">Vayikra 8:8</a>)<b>,</b> which implies that Moshe placed a distinct object into the Choshen? Moreover, he asks,  were not the stones already put into the Choshen by the artisans before the days of consecration, as implied by the phrase "וַיְמַלְאוּ בוֹ אַרְבָּעָה טוּרֵי אָבֶן" (<a href="Shemot39-8-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 39:10</a>)? <multilink><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahShemot28-30" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahShemot28-30" data-aht="source">Shemot 28:30</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg</a></multilink> answers that 39:10 refers only to the making of hollows in which the stones were to be later set.<fn>He points to Rashi who reads the verse in this way.  According to HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, Rashi understands the word "בו" to mean "for it" rather than "in it".</fn> In Vayikra 8:8, Moshe then attaches the entire framework of stones (a distinct object) onto<fn>The phrase "וַיִּתֵּן אֶל" is understood as if written "וַיִּתֵּן על".</fn> the embroidered square of the Choshen.</point> | <point><b>"וַיִּתֵּן אֶל הַחֹשֶׁן אֶת הָאוּרִים וְאֶת הַתֻּמִּים"</b> – Ibn Ezra<fn>See also Ralbag and Abarbanel.</fn> questions that if the Urim and Tummim are identical with the Choshen stones, how is one to understand the phrase "וַיִּתֵּן אֶל הַחֹשֶׁן" (<a href="Vayikra8-6-9" data-aht="source">Vayikra 8:8</a>)<b>,</b> which implies that Moshe placed a distinct object into the Choshen? Moreover, he asks,  were not the stones already put into the Choshen by the artisans before the days of consecration, as implied by the phrase "וַיְמַלְאוּ בוֹ אַרְבָּעָה טוּרֵי אָבֶן" (<a href="Shemot39-8-21" data-aht="source">Shemot 39:10</a>)? <multilink><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahShemot28-30" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahShemot28-30" data-aht="source">Shemot 28:30</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg</a></multilink> answers that 39:10 refers only to the making of hollows in which the stones were to be later set.<fn>He points to Rashi who reads the verse in this way.  According to HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, Rashi understands the word "בו" to mean "for it" rather than "in it".</fn> In Vayikra 8:8, Moshe then attaches the entire framework of stones (a distinct object) onto<fn>The phrase "וַיִּתֵּן אֶל" is understood as if written "וַיִּתֵּן על".</fn> the embroidered square of the Choshen.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>How did the divination work?</b> According to Rambam,<fn>See also the commentary of his son, <multilink><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamShemot28-30" data-aht="source">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</a><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamShemot28-30" data-aht="source">Shemot 28:30</a><a href="R. Avraham Maimonides" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Maimonides</a></multilink>.</fn> when asked a question, the priest would get divine inspiration, look at the Choshen, and via prophecy see certain letters from the engraved names protrude to spell a reply.<fn>He does not address the question of what would happen if a reply necessitated one of the letters of the alphabet which did not appear in the names of the tribes that were engraved on the stones. See suggestions in <a href="BavliYoma73a-b" data-aht="source">Bavli Yoma 73a-b</a>.</fn> According to him, the letters on the stones themselves did not physically shine or pop out and there was no supernatural component to the Choshen. It merely facilitated prophecy.</point> | + | <point><b>How did the divination work?</b><ul> |
+ | <li>Prophecy – According to Rambam,<fn>See also the commentary of his son, <multilink><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamShemot28-30" data-aht="source">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</a><a href="RAvrahambHaRambamShemot28-30" data-aht="source">Shemot 28:30</a><a href="R. Avraham Maimonides" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Maimonides</a></multilink>.</fn> when asked a question, the priest would get divine inspiration, look at the Choshen, and via prophecy see certain letters from the engraved names protrude to spell a reply.<fn>He does not address the question of what would happen if a reply necessitated one of the letters of the alphabet which did not appear in the names of the tribes that were engraved on the stones. See suggestions in <a href="BavliYoma73a-b" data-aht="source">Bavli Yoma 73a-b</a>.</fn> According to him, the letters on the stones themselves did not physically shine or pop out and there was no supernatural component to the Choshen. It merely facilitated prophecy.<fn></fn> </li> | ||
+ | <li>Illumination – Josephus, in contrast, implies that the stones might not have been used for general questions but only to foretell victory in battle. He suggests that when heading towards war, the stones would shine brightly to indicate that Hashem's presence was within the nation.</li> | ||
+ | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Use in Second Temple Period</b> – According to Rambam, though the Urim and Tummim still existed in second temple times, as they were part of the Choshen and necessary to complete the priestly garb, they no longer played a divining role. This resulted from the lesser level of the priests of the time, for only one who had the Divine spirit (רוח הקודש) rest upon them could attain the Divine inspiration necessary to answer the nation's questions.</point> | <point><b>Use in Second Temple Period</b> – According to Rambam, though the Urim and Tummim still existed in second temple times, as they were part of the Choshen and necessary to complete the priestly garb, they no longer played a divining role. This resulted from the lesser level of the priests of the time, for only one who had the Divine spirit (רוח הקודש) rest upon them could attain the Divine inspiration necessary to answer the nation's questions.</point> | ||
<point><b>What is the relationship between the Urim and Tumim?</b> This position would suggest that there is no difference between the Urim and Tummim. When the Urim is mentioned alone, it is simply an abbreviation.</point> | <point><b>What is the relationship between the Urim and Tumim?</b> This position would suggest that there is no difference between the Urim and Tummim. When the Urim is mentioned alone, it is simply an abbreviation.</point> | ||
Line 70: | Line 73: | ||
<p>The Urim and Tummim consisted of small pieces of wood or metal on which were inscribed the letters of the alphabet. When drawn randomly from the Choshen they would form words.</p> | <p>The Urim and Tummim consisted of small pieces of wood or metal on which were inscribed the letters of the alphabet. When drawn randomly from the Choshen they would form words.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="ShadalVayikra8-8" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalVayikra8-8" data-aht="source">Vayikra 8:8</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="HoilMosheShemot28-30" data-aht="source">Hoil Moshe</a><a href="HoilMosheShemot28-30" data-aht="source">Shemot 28:30</a><a href="R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</a></multilink><fn>Several centuries before Shadl and Hoil Moshe, the Christian theologian Hugo of Victor wrote similarly, suggestsing that the Urim and Thummim com[rised a series of signs containing various letters which served as a lottery. When they were cast, a message was spelled. He writes, "On this account, the lots which were cast in antiquity for the indication of truth were called Urim Thummim. They were signs inscribed with different letters. When they were cast, it was shown by a combination of the letters visible from above, by a true indication, what ought to be done or evaded." (Annot. elucid.in Pent. 8 (PL, CLXXV, 72, cited and translated by C.V Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel, (Indiana, 1997): 36.)</fn></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="ShadalVayikra8-8" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalVayikra8-8" data-aht="source">Vayikra 8:8</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="HoilMosheShemot28-30" data-aht="source">Hoil Moshe</a><a href="HoilMosheShemot28-30" data-aht="source">Shemot 28:30</a><a href="R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</a></multilink><fn>Several centuries before Shadl and Hoil Moshe, the Christian theologian Hugo of Victor wrote similarly, suggestsing that the Urim and Thummim com[rised a series of signs containing various letters which served as a lottery. When they were cast, a message was spelled. He writes, "On this account, the lots which were cast in antiquity for the indication of truth were called Urim Thummim. They were signs inscribed with different letters. When they were cast, it was shown by a combination of the letters visible from above, by a true indication, what ought to be done or evaded." (Annot. elucid.in Pent. 8 (PL, CLXXV, 72, cited and translated by C.V Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel, (Indiana, 1997): 36.)</fn></mekorot> | ||
+ | <point><b>Meaning of Name</b> – Shadal suggests that each of the letters of the alphabet might have been given unique names, with aleph referred to as "אור" (appropriate for the first letter) and taf as "תם" (fitting for the final letter).  All the letters together, from aleph to taf, were called "Urim and Tummim".</point> | ||
<point><b>No description in Shemot 28 and no execution in Shemot 39</b> – Since the letter tablets did not need to be crafted specially, and were not made by Betzalel, there is no description of them in the commands of Shemot 28 and no mention of them in the verses detailing the fulfillment of the commands in Shemot 39.</point> | <point><b>No description in Shemot 28 and no execution in Shemot 39</b> – Since the letter tablets did not need to be crafted specially, and were not made by Betzalel, there is no description of them in the commands of Shemot 28 and no mention of them in the verses detailing the fulfillment of the commands in Shemot 39.</point> | ||
− | |||
<point><b>"וַיִּתֵּן אֶל הַחֹשֶׁן אֶת הָאוּרִים וְאֶת הַתֻּמִּים"</b> – Shadal suggests that the fact that Moshe first inserted the Urim and Tummim into the pocket of the Choshen during the consecration ceremony implies that they were not a fixed part if it and were meant to be removed periodically. Moreover, the fact that the Choshen was folded to form a pocket further implies that it was meant to serve as a holder. As such, viewing the Urim and Tummim as individual letter blocks matches the description.</point> | <point><b>"וַיִּתֵּן אֶל הַחֹשֶׁן אֶת הָאוּרִים וְאֶת הַתֻּמִּים"</b> – Shadal suggests that the fact that Moshe first inserted the Urim and Tummim into the pocket of the Choshen during the consecration ceremony implies that they were not a fixed part if it and were meant to be removed periodically. Moreover, the fact that the Choshen was folded to form a pocket further implies that it was meant to serve as a holder. As such, viewing the Urim and Tummim as individual letter blocks matches the description.</point> | ||
<point><b>How did the divination work?</b> Shadal suggests that the priest would randomly take out one letter at a time and Divine providence would thereby provide an appropriate response to whatever question was asked.</point> | <point><b>How did the divination work?</b> Shadal suggests that the priest would randomly take out one letter at a time and Divine providence would thereby provide an appropriate response to whatever question was asked.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Intricate questions</b> | + | <point><b>Intricate questions</b></point> |
<point><b>Definite article</b> – If the Urim and Tummin is simply another name for the alphabet, then it was a known entity, explaining the presence of the definite article.</point> | <point><b>Definite article</b> – If the Urim and Tummin is simply another name for the alphabet, then it was a known entity, explaining the presence of the definite article.</point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
Line 83: | Line 86: | ||
<point><b>Septuagint</b> – Several modern scholars<fn>See above note.</fn> support this approach by turning to the Septuagint's version of <a href="ShemuelI14-38-42" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 14:41</a>, which expands upon the Masoretic text and reads: "וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל אֶל-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל למה לא ענית את עבדך היום אם יש בי או ביונתן בני העון הזה ‎ה' אלהי ישראל הבה אורים ואם ישנו העון הזה בעמך ישראל הָבָה תָמִים.‎<fn>They assume that the Septuagint preserves a more original form and that a mistake fell into the Masoretic text when a copyist accidentally omitted several words in the middle of the verse, his eye skipping from the word "יִשְׂרָאֵל" in the beginning of the verse to the "יִשְׂרָאֵל" at the end (השמטה על ידי הדומות, haplography). However, even if one does not want to posit that a mistake fell into the Masoretic text, one can turn to the Septuagint as a possible understanding of the intent of our verses.</fn> In the Septuagint, Shaul appears to be suggesting that if he and Yonatan are guilty the "ארים" lot should fall to them, whereas if the nation is guilty, the "תמים" lot would instead fall to them.</point> | <point><b>Septuagint</b> – Several modern scholars<fn>See above note.</fn> support this approach by turning to the Septuagint's version of <a href="ShemuelI14-38-42" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 14:41</a>, which expands upon the Masoretic text and reads: "וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל אֶל-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל למה לא ענית את עבדך היום אם יש בי או ביונתן בני העון הזה ‎ה' אלהי ישראל הבה אורים ואם ישנו העון הזה בעמך ישראל הָבָה תָמִים.‎<fn>They assume that the Septuagint preserves a more original form and that a mistake fell into the Masoretic text when a copyist accidentally omitted several words in the middle of the verse, his eye skipping from the word "יִשְׂרָאֵל" in the beginning of the verse to the "יִשְׂרָאֵל" at the end (השמטה על ידי הדומות, haplography). However, even if one does not want to posit that a mistake fell into the Masoretic text, one can turn to the Septuagint as a possible understanding of the intent of our verses.</fn> In the Septuagint, Shaul appears to be suggesting that if he and Yonatan are guilty the "ארים" lot should fall to them, whereas if the nation is guilty, the "תמים" lot would instead fall to them.</point> | ||
<point><b>Meaning of name</b> – In light of the Septuagint text, Tur Sinai and others suggest that "אורים" might relate to the word "ארור" (cursed, connoting guilt or a negative outcome) and "תמים" to innocence, or a positive outcome.</point> | <point><b>Meaning of name</b> – In light of the Septuagint text, Tur Sinai and others suggest that "אורים" might relate to the word "ארור" (cursed, connoting guilt or a negative outcome) and "תמים" to innocence, or a positive outcome.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>How did the divination work</b> – According to | + | <point><b>How did the divination work</b> – The exact dynamics of teh lot are unclear.  According to Tur Sinai, each of the Urim and Tummim was itself a lot and when asked a question, the priest would take one out of the Choshen pocket, providing either a negative or positive response. It is also possible, however, that it was but one object with two sides add functioned lujelike flipping a coin, with one side being the Urim and the other the Tummim.It i also possible that if teh lot was meant to decide between two things, the</point> |
<point><b>No response?</b></point> | <point><b>No response?</b></point> | ||
<point><b>Biblical parallels</b></point> | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b></point> |
Version as of 08:30, 31 January 2022
Urim VeTumim
Exegetical Approaches
Name of Hashem
The Urim and Tummim were an inscription of the proper name of Hashem (or perhaps several names of Hashem) inserted into the folds of the Choshen.
- Spell out message – Ramban suggests that when asked a question, the power from the Divine names of the Urim caused certain letters from the names on the Choshen stones to be illuminated.3 These, though, appeared simultaneously and were not in order, and so other Divine names from the Tummim inspired the priest so he would correctly arrange them to form a word.4 Abarbanel, instead, suggests that Hashem's name caused the letters to be illumintaed one by one, so that the message spelled itself.5
- Inspire prophecy – Ralbag, instead, suggests that focusing on the Divine name in the Urim and Tummim helped the priest attain prophecy. It was this prophecy alone which allowed him to answer the question posed. [According to him, nothing on the Choshen was illuminated or protruded.]
- Purpose – Targum Yonatan maintains that the name derives from their function, with Urim, related to אור (light), referring to how they illuminated Israel, telling them how to act, and Tummim, from "תם" (complete), referring to the fact that the predictions made were always fulfilled.
- Technique – Ramban, alternatively, suggests that the name refers to the techniques by which the divination occurred. The Urim relates to the shining of the letters and Tummim to the perfection given to the priest which enabled him to unscramble the letters to form a message.
Choshen Stones
The Urim and Tummim are identified with the stones of the Choshen on which were engraved the names of the tribes.
- Haketav VeHaKabbalah7 suggests that the name might relate to the stones' physical properties. They were lustrous (full of "אור") and, being unhewn, were complete and perfect ("תם").
- Lekach Tov, instead, suggests that the name reflects the divining function of the stones. Urim stems from the word "אור", for they enlightened Israel when they had a question. Tummim relates to the word "תם", completeness or integrity, for their determinations always came true.
- Rav Shrira Gaon suggests that the additional name is simply a sign of praise, highlighting the unique and important nature of the object.
- It is also possible that the Urim and Tummim is the name given to the entire framework of twelve stones in their gold settings. The Choshen, in contrast, referred to the multicolored woven fabric, or perhaps to the fabric together with the framework of stones, while the stones themselves each have individual names.
- Prophecy – According to Rambam,11 when asked a question, the priest would get divine inspiration, look at the Choshen, and via prophecy see certain letters from the engraved names protrude to spell a reply.12 According to him, the letters on the stones themselves did not physically shine or pop out and there was no supernatural component to the Choshen. It merely facilitated prophecy.13
- Illumination – Josephus, in contrast, implies that the stones might not have been used for general questions but only to foretell victory in battle. He suggests that when heading towards war, the stones would shine brightly to indicate that Hashem's presence was within the nation.
Astrological Signs
The Urim and Tummim referred to forms of various astrological objects, such as the various stars and constellations.
- Ibn Ezra is intentionally obscure but claims that the Urim were made of gold and silver, perhaps implying that one was meant to represent the sun and the other the moon. He further alludes to the twelve constellations,14 perhaps what he thinks the Tummim represented. As such, it seems that according to him, the Urim and Tummin might have functioned as a sort of astrolabe, a model of the celestial spheres.
- Ralbag explains similarly, explicitly suggesting that the Urim refer to images of the stars, while the Tummim refer to forms of other celestial objects and their movers, including their prime mover, Hashem. According to him, then, the latter were presumably alluded to via some type of writing and not via a physical image.
Lottery
The Urim and Tummim functioned as a lottery. This opinion subdivides regarding the lottery dynamics:
Alphabet
The Urim and Tummim consisted of small pieces of wood or metal on which were inscribed the letters of the alphabet. When drawn randomly from the Choshen they would form words.
Binary Lots
The Urim and Tummim were two objects which served as lots, one representing a positive response and the other a negative one (or one representing one possible outcome and the other its alternative).